ReviewJournal of inflammation research2025
A Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation of Rilonacept in the Treatment of Recurrent Pericarditis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of inflammation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio as a novel prognostic biomarker for long-term mortality in pericarditis: a real-world study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Recurrent pericarditis (RP) is a rare cardiac condition characterized by recurrent inflammation, in which interleukin-1 (IL-1) is a key mediator. Despite increasing use of IL-1 inhibitors, comprehensive evaluations of rilonacept for RP are very limited, especially in China, where RP was newly listed as a rare disease in 2023. This review addresses the current gap by systematically assessing the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, innovativeness, suitability, and accessibility of rilonacept in the management of RP, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical practice. Methods: A systematic literature review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024609978) was conducted across six electronic databases (three international databases, PubMed, Ovid/Embase, The Cochrane Library; three Chinese platforms, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP) from their inception to September 30, 2024. The search protocol incorporated both controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and free-text terms specific to rilonacept and RP. Studies were included if they investigated rilonacept for the treatment of RP, and fulfilled all predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The retrieved literature underwent comprehensive analysis focusing on efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, innovativeness, suitability, and accessibility of rilonacept in RP management. Results: Five clinical studies were identified but no pharmacoeconomic studies were found. All patients experienced a decrease in pericarditis pain to 0.4-0.6 points and a decrease in C-reactive protein levels to 0.22 mg/dL after treatment. The median time to reach therapeutic endpoints was approximately 5-7 days, with significantly reduced recurrence rates and markedly improved quality of life. The treatment demonstrates excellent long-term tolerability. It addresses a critical clinical need, offers convenient administration, and exhibits promising innovation, appropriateness, and accessibility. While its economic feasibility requires post-marketing analysis, the drug shows considerable potential for future clinical application. Conclusion: Rilonacept is effective, tolerable, innovative, and suitable in the treatment of RP, while also showing promise in improving its cost-effectiveness and accessibility. Further comparative and cost-effectiveness studies are needed to fully define the therapeutic role of rilonacept in the RP treatment paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.